(The Center Square) – Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the county Board of Supervisors are continuing to battle over what an early voting plan will look like.
Ever since Heap took office last year, he and the board in Arizona’s most populous county have been at odds.
The Phoenix-based board passed a new draft of a Shared Services Agreement last April, a formal contract detailing how the Recorder’s Office and the board will perform election administrative duties under Arizona law.
After receiving the SSA agreement, Heap made 170 different changes to it and sent it back to the board, calling it his “final offer,” according to a Maricopa County news release.
However, Heap and the board could not come to an agreement on the SSA, so he filed a lawsuit against the board two months later.
Heap said the lawsuit sought to “reclaim the legal authority afforded to the County Recorder under Arizona law and ensure that [his] office is not further deprived of the resources necessary to perform those duties to the fullest extent possible.”
On Feb. 17, the board passed a new SSA.
The new SSA permitted Heap to have full control over early-voting plans, while the board kept control over funding, staffing, contracts and Election Day operations.
“Since Mr. Heap has not provided a serious response to our latest SSA offer, we felt it was important to state publicly and transparently how we will go about navigating some of most contentious issues between our respective offices so that we can ensure elections run smoothly and securely for Maricopa County voters,” Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee said.
The following week, board members sent a letter to Heap with their proposed early-voting plan despite giving him full control over it.
“The Board of Supervisors strongly supports maintaining a comprehensive early in-person program consistent with prior practices,” the letter said.
Heap responded to the letter, saying that he had “serious concerns” about the board’s early voting plan. He said the proposal “makes voting inconvenient and inaccessible for a large number of Maricopa County voters.”
He told board members that he rejected their proposal because Arizona law “expressly authorizes the Recorder to establish early voting locations.”
“The Board’s proposed early voting locations demonstrate a highly uneven distribution,” Heap added.
“That kind of imbalance makes voting more difficult in large portions of the county and risks leaving a substantial percentage of county voters without reasonable access to early voting,” the recorder said. “Elections should be fair and accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live.”
Jason Berry, a spokesperson for Maricopa County, told The Center Square this week by email that Heap’s claim “seems based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the spreadsheet” provided by Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett.
As an example, in Heap’s letter, he said Tempe, with a population of around 180,000, has only three assigned early-voting sites, whereas Mesa, a city with approximately 500,000, has only one.
However, a fact sheet provided by Berry to The Center Square states that the spreadsheet sent to Heap showed that Tempe had three confirmed sites and two pending, while Mesa had one confirmed site and eight pending.
Berry said the board “is focused on delivering successful elections.”
“Recorder Heap has been given control of early in-person voting,” Berry told The Center Square, answering questions by email. “Board members look forward to hearing his plan. The Chair and Vice Chair have stated their strong preference that Mr. Heap provide the same level of service that Maricopa County voters have come to expect in past years.”
This week, Heap told The Center Square that his office is still “trying to get accurate information from the board.”
Heap said he appreciated board members “finally acknowledging” that they will follow the law, but he said this “hasn’t been matched with anything in terms of action.”
The board has not given the Recorder’s Office the “resources, staff or contracting authority” to carry out the early vote plan, according to Heap.
The recorder said he is “attempting to work with the board’s staff take over this project.” However, he said the board has only given him a “spreadsheet of proposed locations.”
If the board “truly” wanted to give back the proposed early voting plan to his office, it should have started working with him “months ago,” Heap stated.
“If the board is not going to provide all of the resources, at very least, they need to instruct their staff to follow the recorder’s lead and provide us with the information that we need to run this,” he said.
Going forward, Heap said he is optimistic about the early voting plan, stating he has secured additional voting sites.
“ As long as the board actually does what they have promised the voters they’re going to do and support the plan that we put forward, then I think we can expect a smooth transition,” Heap explained.
Heap told The Center Square that his working relationship with the board has “certainly been a struggle.”
“ I remain committed to cooperating because ultimately we wanna make sure we have a smooth transition, that elections run smoothly, that we move from early voting over to Election Day,” he said
“Only now, when we’re about to get a ruling from the court, is suddenly the board wanting to reach some sort of agreement or settlement,” Heap noted.
From the board’s perspective, Berry said, “Behind the scenes, staff is working well together and making substantial progress to secure early voting sites, as we’ve done in past elections.”
“The Board has attempted to work in good faith with Recorder Heap,” he added.
Heap told The Center Square that he feels “very confident” that his office will see a “positive ruling” from the court.
”Ultimately, what we’re really fighting for is just a clarification from the court on which duties correspond to each office,” he explained.
Heap said his position is that “if the law assigns something to the recorder,” then it is the recorder’s responsibility to enact that law. But if the law assigns something to the board, the board must enforce that law.
In areas where the recorder’s and board’s duties overlap, Heap said they can “work together.”
However, Heap said the board’s position has been that it can “take over any duty in elections” it chooses.
“ The board believes it is fully in control to determine what elected officers can and cannot do. I think we need clarification from the court,” he explained.
According to Berry, the board’s elections department and Heap’s office “are working closely together as they have in previous successful elections.”
“Currently they are making substantial progress to select and secure early voting sites. That work will continue. From the Board’s perspective, voters come first and their experience must be prioritized,” he explained.
